Anarcho Capitalism: A Definition and Guide on Why It Matters - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15228239
Anarcho Capitalism refers to the philosophy that calls for the abolition of centralized states. In its stead, the state will be replaced by a system of private property which will be maintained by private institutions and civil society.

Anarcho-capitalism is truly radical in the sense that it strikes at the root of societal problems and attempts to offer solutions to these problems through market forces. Given the philosophy’s relatively young age, anarcho-capitalist thought merits a proper analysis in order for novices to fully comprehend it.

Understanding the Philosophy of Anarcho Capitalism

The concepts of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle largely define anarcho capitalism. Individuals have full control of their lives and can pursue their own goals as long as they do not transgress on other people’s rights. The non-aggression principle makes it clear that individuals cannot encroach on the person or property of any other individual.

The initiation of force against others is categorically rejected under this philosophy’s precepts. This does not only apply between regular individuals but also between the relationship of the individual and state.

The state itself is viewed as a coercive institution that is centered on said aggression through its practice of taxation and monopoly on violence. In addition, state activities such as economic and social regulation, prohibitions, and other forms of government intervention in people’s private affairs are categorically rejected by proponents of this philosophy.

The History of Anarcho Capitalist Thought

For starters, the word anarchy has a stereotypical perception of being associated with radical leftist political movements in most Western nations. However, the perception of anarchy as a leftist movement is warranted given its history.

Most strands of anarchism, above all, the European variants, tend to have origins on the Left. There is still a broad consensus among anarchists sects on issues of state authority, which they generally eschew.

Luminaries such as Peter Kropotkin, Joseph-Pierre Proudhon, and Mikhail Bakunin led the way in giving anarchism a coherent vision for people to follow during the nineteenth century.

The anarchism of 19th century European radicals viewed private property in a negative light and were skeptical of capitalism. In many respects, these groups were adjacent to the ascendant Marxist movement that grew concurrently with classical anarchist thought.

Some movements within the anarchist sphere had a revolutionary bent and were willing to engage in acts of political violence. Numerous statesmen such as Russian Tsar Alexander II and American president William McKinnley were assassinated by anarchists.

The impact of these assassinations firmly ingrained in Westerners’ minds the idea that anarchism was associated with violence, thus requiring states to put tabs on these movements.

However, the entry of anarcho-capitalism in the 1900s gave anarchism a new twist by not dismissing capitalism outright. In fact, the average anarcho-capitalist embraced the market and saw it as a tool to fight against the state. By taking a look at the roots of this subsect of anarchism, we can get an idea of how free-market anarchism came about.

Early European Figures of Anarchist Thought

Across the pond, existed some precursors to American-style anarcho-capitalism. Etienne de la Boétie (1530-1563), a French judge, was an early proponent of anarchist thought.

In his work, the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, he advocated for civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. Mr. libertarian himself, Murray N. Rothbard praised de la Boétie’s work for its emphasis on civil disobedience against unjust state actions.

The French intellectual Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) played an unheralded role during his career making the case for capitalism.

His political theory of liberty was spelled out in his magnum opus, The Law, in which he made the case for a laissez-faire economy and viewed the use of state power in economic affairs as an immoral act.

Although he was a minarchist, Bastiat was one of the 19th century’s strongest proponents of individual rights and an inspiration for Austrian economists such Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek in the subsequent century. Bastiat’s The Law remains an influential introductory text for pro-capitalist adherents.

Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), a Belgian political theorist, was another European figure who gave a unique spin to the anarchist movement. De Molinari was one of the most notable pre-Rothbardian anarchist figures who blended anarchism with capitalist thought.

In his work, the Production of Security, de Molinari made the case for private defense and property rights and railed against state monopolies. Modern anarchist figures such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe have lauded de Molinari’s work for being ahead of its time in pushing for anarchism with capitalistic features.

The German philosopher Max Stirner also contributed to developing anarchist thought in Europe. Stirner was renowned for his emphasis on individualism and is seen as the father of modern individualist anarchism. His magnum opus, The Ego and Its Own is filled with anti-authoritarian and individualist themes that have been passed on to succeeding generations of anarchists.

Although not an anarchist per se, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer was known for his firm advocacy of capitalist principles in the latter half of the 1800s. Murray Rothbard described Spencer’s Social Statics as “the greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written.”

Continue reading Anarcho Capitalism: A Definition and Guide on Why It Matters on Libertas Bella
#15228302
libertasbella wrote:Anarcho Capitalism refers to the philosophy that calls for the abolition of centralized states. In its stead, the state will be replaced by a system of private property which will be maintained by private institutions and civil society.

Anarcho-capitalism is truly radical in the sense that it strikes at the root of societal problems and attempts to offer solutions to these problems through market forces. Given the philosophy’s relatively young age, anarcho-capitalist thought merits a proper analysis in order for novices to fully comprehend it.

Understanding the Philosophy of Anarcho Capitalism

The concepts of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle largely define anarcho capitalism. Individuals have full control of their lives and can pursue their own goals as long as they do not transgress on other people’s rights. The non-aggression principle makes it clear that individuals cannot encroach on the person or property of any other individual.

The initiation of force against others is categorically rejected under this philosophy’s precepts. This does not only apply between regular individuals but also between the relationship of the individual and state.

The state itself is viewed as a coercive institution that is centered on said aggression through its practice of taxation and monopoly on violence. In addition, state activities such as economic and social regulation, prohibitions, and other forms of government intervention in people’s private affairs are categorically rejected by proponents of this philosophy.

The History of Anarcho Capitalist Thought

For starters, the word anarchy has a stereotypical perception of being associated with radical leftist political movements in most Western nations. However, the perception of anarchy as a leftist movement is warranted given its history.

Most strands of anarchism, above all, the European variants, tend to have origins on the Left. There is still a broad consensus among anarchists sects on issues of state authority, which they generally eschew.

Luminaries such as Peter Kropotkin, Joseph-Pierre Proudhon, and Mikhail Bakunin led the way in giving anarchism a coherent vision for people to follow during the nineteenth century.

The anarchism of 19th century European radicals viewed private property in a negative light and were skeptical of capitalism. In many respects, these groups were adjacent to the ascendant Marxist movement that grew concurrently with classical anarchist thought.

Some movements within the anarchist sphere had a revolutionary bent and were willing to engage in acts of political violence. Numerous statesmen such as Russian Tsar Alexander II and American president William McKinnley were assassinated by anarchists.

The impact of these assassinations firmly ingrained in Westerners’ minds the idea that anarchism was associated with violence, thus requiring states to put tabs on these movements.

However, the entry of anarcho-capitalism in the 1900s gave anarchism a new twist by not dismissing capitalism outright. In fact, the average anarcho-capitalist embraced the market and saw it as a tool to fight against the state. By taking a look at the roots of this subsect of anarchism, we can get an idea of how free-market anarchism came about.

Early European Figures of Anarchist Thought

Across the pond, existed some precursors to American-style anarcho-capitalism. Etienne de la Boétie (1530-1563), a French judge, was an early proponent of anarchist thought.

In his work, the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, he advocated for civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. Mr. libertarian himself, Murray N. Rothbard praised de la Boétie’s work for its emphasis on civil disobedience against unjust state actions.

The French intellectual Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) played an unheralded role during his career making the case for capitalism.

His political theory of liberty was spelled out in his magnum opus, The Law, in which he made the case for a laissez-faire economy and viewed the use of state power in economic affairs as an immoral act.

Although he was a minarchist, Bastiat was one of the 19th century’s strongest proponents of individual rights and an inspiration for Austrian economists such Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek in the subsequent century. Bastiat’s The Law remains an influential introductory text for pro-capitalist adherents.

Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), a Belgian political theorist, was another European figure who gave a unique spin to the anarchist movement. De Molinari was one of the most notable pre-Rothbardian anarchist figures who blended anarchism with capitalist thought.

In his work, the Production of Security, de Molinari made the case for private defense and property rights and railed against state monopolies. Modern anarchist figures such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe have lauded de Molinari’s work for being ahead of its time in pushing for anarchism with capitalistic features.

The German philosopher Max Stirner also contributed to developing anarchist thought in Europe. Stirner was renowned for his emphasis on individualism and is seen as the father of modern individualist anarchism. His magnum opus, The Ego and Its Own is filled with anti-authoritarian and individualist themes that have been passed on to succeeding generations of anarchists.

Although not an anarchist per se, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer was known for his firm advocacy of capitalist principles in the latter half of the 1800s. Murray Rothbard described Spencer’s Social Statics as “the greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written.”

Continue reading Anarcho Capitalism: A Definition and Guide on Why It Matters on Libertas Bella



It's a logical absurdity without any value other than useful idiots for the 1%.
#15228376
libertasbella wrote:
The impact of these assassinations firmly ingrained in Westerners’ minds the idea that anarchism was associated with violence, thus requiring states to put tabs on these movements.



Wait -- you're saying that a *strong centralized state* is necessary in order 'to put tabs on these [anarchist] movements' -- ?


libertasbella wrote:
However, the entry of anarcho-capitalism in the 1900s gave anarchism a new twist by not dismissing capitalism outright.



Co-optation / marketing.

(No, really, considering that anarchism is soundly *anti-capitalist*, and you're trying to marry anti-capitalist politics, to capitalism, with a '[capitalist] new twist' -- ?)
#15228674
libertasbella wrote:>you're trying to marry anti-capitalist politics, to capitalism, with a '[capitalist] new twist'
Image


You do not reply to posts.

You do not support your claims.

You do not use logic or facts to analyse the claims of others.

There seems to be no point debating with you.

And you believe in fairy tales like anarchocapitalism.
#15329456
annatar1914 wrote:Now this is something I can agree with. Anarcho capitalism is something which if remembered at all will be seen as a species of ideological insanity


A placeholder.

That is, i firmly believe that there are individuals in politics today who are within government now and are at least somewhat open to the ideology of Anarcho Capitalism.

So if im right there will be reason to discuss it here.

And yes i agree with Murray Rothbard that:

“capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism"
#15329482
annatar1914 wrote:A placeholder.

That is, i firmly believe that there are individuals in politics today who are within government now and are at least somewhat open to the ideology of Anarcho Capitalism.

So if im right there will be reason to discuss it here.

And yes i agree with Murray Rothbard that:


I really dislike that ideology. I am trying to get away from the word hate. But that political philosophy disgusts me profoundly.
#15329484
Tainari88 wrote:I really dislike that ideology. I am trying to get away from the word hate. But that political philosophy disgusts me profoundly.


@Tainari88 :

I brought it up again as a reminder at least to myself that i think that this is the basic ideology of a Musk or a Trump, or close to it. Not a traditional European style Fascism.

If im wrong im wrong but if im right they are going to gut and evicerate the American State and deregulate the corporations and the economy.
#15329486
annatar1914 wrote:@Tainari88 :

I brought it up again as a reminder at least to myself that i think that this is the basic ideology of a Musk or a Trump, or close to it. Not a traditional European style Fascism.

If im wrong im wrong but if im right they are going to gut and evicerate the American State and deregulate the corporations and the economy.


You are not wrong. That is exactly what they are going to do. And anyone from the public or the government entities who want to preserve a state apparatus for serving the population will be gutted and killed outright.

I also doubt they will concede a defeat in the ballot box even if it is against them. They will refuse to concede defeat. It will be a big problem ousting them once they get entrenched and get to work on dismantling all of the government powers. The only thing left standing are going to be the huge billionaire class, Wall Street and Corporate dictators. That is it. Everyone else will be effectively dethroned.

But the American voters who did not really realize exactly what they were voting for? Are not going to be able to reverse that train. They signed up for it until they destroy it. And they signed up for that ride. Ride that train until you feel the pain and the burn. You can't be ignorant about what you chose.

In the interim the PRC, and the rest are going to be making huge inroads into other nations and building their military and their economics. It will take a while for them to jockey into position. But they will be within striking distance of overtaking the US technology wise and commercial wise within the next 20 years. They will also be able to overtake the US militarily if the US keeps jumping into wars (if Trump avoids wars and controls the Pentagon? He just might be able to avoid wars. Except the internal one that he will wage). I would say two more bad wars that cost trillions? And that is it. The US is done.

If the Trump type people also eviscerate the US Military by wanting to strip Black, and Latino, and Asian officers, and gay officers of any authority because they stated they want a US military that looks like it did in 1974? They said that in Project 2025. They said they want a white nationalist Christian military. And they want all Black officers in all of the branches of the miltiary to be relieved of their command.

If that is successful? Then the US military will also be fractured and not unified. Insurrection there too.

Then? The PRC and others will be unified and make huge strides towards stepping into the vacuum left by the Project 2025 nightmare.


And the ones who loved those fascists will have to pay the price. They thought the liberals and Leftists were the Devils and the dangers. It is anarcho capitalists, greed, and authoritarian religious white Christian fascist fanatics that will prefer burning their own nation down than sharing it with the vermin minorities, the Muslims and non Europeans and non Right wing fanatical thoughts like--Protestant versions of Jesus and money is true Christianity--that has infected the Protestant element of Right wing thought in the USA.

They killed their own nation with fanatic crap.
#15329498
Tainari88 wrote:You are not wrong. That is exactly what they are going to do. And anyone from the public or the government entities who want to preserve a state apparatus for serving the population will be gutted and killed outright.

I also doubt they will concede a defeat in the ballot box even if it is against them. They will refuse to concede defeat. It will be a big problem ousting them once they get entrenched and get to work on dismantling all of the government powers. The only thing left standing are going to be the huge billionaire class, Wall Street and Corporate dictators. That is it. Everyone else will be effectively dethroned.

But the American voters who did not really realize exactly what they were voting for? Are not going to be able to reverse that train. They signed up for it until they destroy it. And they signed up for that ride. Ride that train until you feel the pain and the burn. You can't be ignorant about what you chose.

In the interim the PRC, and the rest are going to be making huge inroads into other nations and building their military and their economics. It will take a while for them to jockey into position. But they will be within striking distance of overtaking the US technology wise and commercial wise within the next 20 years. They will also be able to overtake the US militarily if the US keeps jumping into wars (if Trump avoids wars and controls the Pentagon? He just might be able to avoid wars. Except the internal one that he will wage). I would say two more bad wars that cost trillions? And that is it. The US is done.

If the Trump type people also eviscerate the US Military by wanting to strip Black, and Latino, and Asian officers, and gay officers of any authority because they stated they want a US military that looks like it did in 1974? They said that in Project 2025. They said they want a white nationalist Christian military. And they want all Black officers in all of the branches of the miltiary to be relieved of their command.

If that is successful? Then the US military will also be fractured and not unified. Insurrection there too.

Then? The PRC and others will be unified and make huge strides towards stepping into the vacuum left by the Project 2025 nightmare.


And the ones who loved those fascists will have to pay the price. They thought the liberals and Leftists were the Devils and the dangers. It is anarcho capitalists, greed, and authoritarian religious white Christian fascist fanatics that will prefer burning their own nation down than sharing it with the vermin minorities, the Muslims and non Europeans and non Right wing fanatical thoughts like--Protestant versions of Jesus and money is true Christianity--that has infected the Protestant element of Right wing thought in the USA.

They killed their own nation with fanatic crap.


@Tainari88 :

Murray Rothbard was pro Confederacy and pro Holocaust Denier ( despite his Jewish ethnicity, entirely secular and assimilated) , and with these notions, with his extreme views justifying child neglect and abandonment/infanticide and even forms of slavery, is a very sinister figure.

They view the State as the Enemy because the existence of the State threatens their exaltation of the Individual, the Neitzschean Superman.
#15329521
annatar1914 wrote:@Tainari88 :

Murray Rothbard was pro Confederacy and pro Holocaust Denier ( despite his Jewish ethnicity, entirely secular and assimilated) , and with these notions, with his extreme views justifying child neglect and abandonment/infanticide and even forms of slavery, is a very sinister figure.

They view the State as the Enemy because the existence of the State threatens their exaltation of the Individual, the Neitzschean Superman.


Individualism does nothing for the group relationship. The only thing that evolves is the group. Individualism for any kind of group progress and change is moot. You can't go back to feudal times. You might want to go back to that? But the reason that is not coming back? Is simple. The entire society had to experience the fallout of the feudal structures. Capitalism killed off feudalism and all its institutions because the industrial revolution required it to die. You can't revive a dead structure because you want to live in a past that no longer is about the present economic, social and structural conditions.

The ones who socially isolate are consistent. Like the Amish and the Mennonites and so on. They have to cut themselves off from the rest of society and resist the outside influences. Why? Because the relationships formed inside the dominant mainstream culture has enormous influence.

Human cultures and societies can't revive a dead past. It requires you giving up engagement in the present society.

They can't do that. It means economic and social collapse. Again, they believe in myth. Not reality.
#15329524
Variations on anarcho-capitalism (or something close to it) are explored in the article “Bucks Without Borders” in the October 28 issue of The New Yorker magazine.

The most idealistic proponent is venture capitalist Balaji Srinivasan, who proposes an “opt-in society, ultimately outside the U.S., run by technology.” He describes “a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from preexisting states.”

The article writer, Gideon Lewis-Kraus, describes the participants as “elevated hunter-gatherers” who are free to leave their associations at any time.

However, most of the article is devoted to previous forms of anarcho-capitalism, the outgrowth of colonialism in which entrepreneurs created havens such as Hong Kong and Singapore that operated independently of the native authorities, and its more modern form: “special economic zones” that allow businesses to operate in foreign nations without the restraints of pesky environmental and labor laws, or as a way to evade import quotas.
#15329525
annatar1914 wrote:@Tainari88 :

Murray Rothbard was pro Confederacy and pro Holocaust Denier ( despite his Jewish ethnicity, entirely secular and assimilated) , and with these notions, with his extreme views justifying child neglect and abandonment/infanticide and even forms of slavery, is a very sinister figure.

They view the State as the Enemy because the existence of the State threatens their exaltation of the Individual, the Neitzschean Superman.


You should look up his beliefs on abortion and children more generally. Totally wacko shit.
#15329529
wat0n wrote:You should look up his beliefs on abortion and children more generally. Totally wacko shit.


@wat0n :

" evictionism" i believe they call it.

Rothbard matched the ideas of Trump on this i think. Get rid of Roe v. Wade and get it back to the States as a States rights issue against the Federal government as an interim measure, but unborn and born children are alike parasites and intruders interferring with individual adult autonomy and abortion and infanticide should be universal. I think that is their view.

Likewise the immigration issue. Making it where the states decide, weaken the Federal government. Look past the rhetoric and one can see this is already the case.
#15329532
annatar1914 wrote:@wat0n :

" evictionism" i believe they call it.

Rothbard matched the ideas of Trump on this i think. Get rid of Roe v. Wade and get it back to the States as a States rights issue against the Federal government as an interim measure, but unborn and born children are alike parasites and intruders interferring with individual adult autonomy and abortion and infanticide should be universal. I think that is their view.

Likewise the immigration issue. Making it where the states decide, weaken the Federal government. Look past the rhetoric and one can see this is already the case.


Rothbard also believed parents should be able to force their children to work (to pay them for rent as food) or to sell them if they want.
Jihadists attack Syria, Again

as I predicted : https://x.com/i/status/1865146[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Why are the Liberals so stupid? In all three of t[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH89FALX_TA

I think that the reason why the western powers are[…]